Longitudinal Changes in Cognition in Parkinson’s Disease with and without Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The longitudinal cognitive course in Parkinson's disease (PD) with and without dementia remains undefined. We compared cross-sectional models of cognition in PD (both with and without dementia), Alzheimer's disease (AD), and nondemented aging and followed the participants over time. METHOD: Previously validated models of cognitive performance in AD and nondemented aging were extended to individuals with PD (with dementia, n = 71; without dementia, n = 47). Confirmatory factor analysis and piecewise regression were used to compare the longitudinal course of participants with PD with 191 cognitively healthy subjects and 115 individuals with autopsy-confirmed AD. RESULTS: A factor analytic model with one general factor and three specific factors (verbal memory, visuospatial memory, working memory) fit demented and nondemented PD. Longitudinal change indicated that individuals with PD with dementia declined significantly more rapidly on visuospatial and verbal memory tasks than AD alone. Cognitive declines across all factors in AD and PD dementia accelerated several years prior to clinical dementia diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Both specific and global cognitive changes are witnessed in PD and AD. Longitudinal profiles of cognitive decline in PD and AD differed. PD with or without dementia has a core feature of longitudinal decline in visuospatial abilities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".